Film The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

[michael]

the character is not in the book.
besides being a retarded character.

 

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by michael:
the character is not in the book.
Liv Tyler plays the part of Arwen who is most definitely in the book!
alasdair

 

[michael]

to expand:
yes arwen is in the novel. this i know.
i think she finally gets a line in the sixth book.
what i was referring to is the fact that they basically made up a character for the movie, all the while pretending that it follows the book.
[ 17 December 2002: Message edited by: michael ]

 

[Neural Shock]

see you guys at Helm's Deep...

 

[Nexus One]

I got my ticket for Saturday 9:30
I watch the extended special edition of FotR last night, I liked it much much more than the cinema version.

 

[Neural Shock]

Originally posted by michael:
to expand:
yes arwen is in the novel. this i know.
i think she finally gets a line in the sixth book.
what i was referring to is the fact that they basically made up a character for the movie, all the while pretending that it follows the book.

Pretending whassa ? Vomit! Arse! Get the rod removed.

 

[michael]

if you want, start another thread and i will go into more detail about the immense suckitude of the movie.
i can already spot glaring differences between the novel and this movie from the freaking trailer for chrissakes.

 

[Nexus One]

All the changes were made with good reason. Peter Jackson (and the majority of the cast) have read the book more times than you care to count.
It's not like they changed something to piss everyone off or because they liked their idea better... it's because they had to, for the movies sake. Listen to the director's commentary on the Extended Special Edition.

 

[alasdairm]

i think to many people expect a film to stick strictly and exactly to the shape of the book. i think that's unrealistic given the limitations of film (e.g. the movie can not be 28 hours long).
it's commercial. it's a compromise. that sucks.
get over it and go along to enjoy the movie in its own right. maybe it will help to think of it as a work of art 'inspired by The Two Towers', not a film version of the book.
i think the first movie is a cinematic marvel. i'll tell you what i think about the 2nd one tomorrow. i think the scale of Tolkein's vision was done justice by Peter Jackson and i have no doubt the other two will too.
alasdair

 

[michael]

ok, i will go into some detail here why i think it such a poor adaptation. note that i am not complaining about the fact that tom bombadil is missing from the movie.
a) they completely blew the chronology of the book. this leads to
b) the council of elrond sucks. there's absolutely no explanation of why anyone is there. why has boromir travelled from minith tirith? why is gimli there? what is the motivation for any of the characters, considering most of them don't know anything about the ring?
c) absolutely no mention of the sword reforged, which is not exactly a minor plot device.
d) this seems like a minor complaint, but should make more sense when i explain a bit. in the book pippin throws a stone down the well in moria. this displays one of the fundamental character traits of the tooks - their inquisitiveness and love for adventure. in the movie he is a bumbling oaf who accidentally knocks a skeleton down the well.
e) whatever happened to sauraman of many colors, and what's with this hokey fight between him and gandalf?
you may think i'm making a big deal about ralatively minor concerns, but oh well. these are all things (and there are many more) that kept me from being able to enjoy the movie as i could have.
by all means, if you like poor character development and are the kind of person who is blinded by eye-candy special effects, go talk about how wonderful the movie is.

 

[Nexus One]

Having seen only the 1st movie and not read the books, I can hardly call myself a fan, however, you really should try the extended version. It has a scene with the sword you mentioned in point C, and seems to make a lot more sense.
I wondered about your point B when I saw the movie. I assumed they lived there with the elves

 

[skywise]

I've gotta disagree with you Michael. While the movies are certainly no replacement for the novels (which are amazing) I still think its great fun to see LotR come to life on the silver screen. I know that the movies not perfect but its certainly not bad, and certainly better than the animated versions. Plus, theres just something immensely appealing about being able to watch galadriel in a fully realized lothlorien, the ents destroy isengard etc.

 

[NeoMagic]

Its going to be incredible, after watching the behind the scenes special that tnt aired last night I am even more anxious to see the film. Also I am renaming this thread to LotR: The Two Towers - discussion and creating another thread LotR: The Two Towers - reviews. If someone would like to post the review thread before I see the movie tonight..then by all means post it & your review!

 

[djwhirlpool]

so how was it????

 

[michael]

actually there is a scene with narsil in the cinema version of the movie as well, but no mention of it being reforged or why that would be important.
but i guess since they barely mention any history or any of the lore behind any of the events it doesn't really matter.

 

[ibizakat]

Originally posted by michael:
actually there is a scene with narsil in the cinema version of the movie as well, but no mention of it being reforged or why that would be important.
but i guess since they barely mention any history or any of the lore behind any of the events it doesn't really matter.
Jaded tolkien fan. There is absolutely NO WAY that LotR could be made into a movie that you would find acceptable - unless they cut it up into 6 parts instead of 3, which wouldn't even really make sense, as far as the story goes. Jackson has taken some artistic liberties and glossed over some of the parts that would be harder to put into visual form. Though i haven't seen TTT yet (i'm going this afternoon! and again on friday!) i absolutely loved FotR for what it was - a tribute to the genius that was JRR Tolkien. Maybe all the elements of the lore and mythology aren't there. Maybe you can't learn to speak Sindarin by watching the movie. BUT - and you can't deny this - Peter Jackson has done the best job possible in making a movie adaptation with popular appeal. And just look at sales of the original books in the past year or so. More and more people are *reading* the book, more and more people are realizing just how amazing Tolkien was. And if a couple new people come to appreciate his work, isn't it okay if the movie doesn't exactly follow the plot of the book?
and about Arwen - again, i haven't seen TTT yet, so I don't know what they've done with her character. BUT i can say that it is nice to see her getting some more action. there are so few female characters in tolkien's work anyway, it's nice to see him expand the role of any of them. The rumor I heard a year ago was that Jackson had completely done away with Eowyn, and replaced her character with Arwen's. THAT would have been blasphemy. Allowing Arwen to shine throughout all three movies, rather than just being Aragorn's trophy wife, is a move I definitely applaud.
I could go on forever about this... but i'll stop now. Bottom line: Jackson has done all he can to make these films both a) a box office success and b) as true to the books as possible.

 

[Lingo]

Michael - The entire film trilogy was a milestone in cinimatic history. It broke new ground on many levels. But like many have already said, there is still NO way a FILM can come close to reaching the true scope of the books. That being said, the film is still a damn impressive and highly enjoyable accomplishment.
It's not like we're talking about Titanic... a movie with a rediculous budget and fancy special effects, but cliched characters and lame stories. Lord of the Rings is a well made film. Please try to take it as such.
Adios,
Steve

 

[Petersko]

Practically any book must be retooled to work as a movie. You can't pace them similarly, some scenes will never work onscreen, and as a result some scenes often need to be created to bridge the gaps.
There are a lot of unhappy little fanboys out there who just don't "get" the fact that the author of the book didn't write a screenplay.
If your happiness with a movie rests on how directly the book was translated, then you live a sad little life.
Enjoy the movie for what it is: "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Movie", not "The Book".

 

[Petersko]

d) this seems like a minor complaint, but should make more sense when i explain a bit. in the book pippin throws a stone down the well in moria. this displays one of the fundamental character traits of the tooks - their inquisitiveness and love for adventure. in the movie he is a bumbling oaf who accidentally knocks a skeleton down the well.
Cinematically, the skeleton and the resulting cacophony work far better than the stone would have. They are more "fulfilling" on screen.
What a silly thing to fixate on.

 

[Finder]

The biggest problem I had with Fellowship and the problem that will probably carry over to the Two Towers is that the movie fails to depict the huge distances the characters must travel. For example, as soon as Frodo and Sam meet up with the other two hobbits they fall down an embankment, hide from a Ringwraith, and are immediately whisked away to Elrond. I understand they left out the entire Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs, but christ, try to make it seem like they're traveling farther then their backyard.